Atheist Nexus

The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

In my job I occasionally have to respond to call center forms documenting mis-shipments, missing parts, overages, etc. So, often I end up doing some kind of investigation. One of the forms I got last night stated that somebody would need to "inertigate" the issue.

I'm thinking if I procrastinate enough I will have reached the inert state desired.

Do you have anything similar? Instead of correcting the hoi polloi, let's celebrate the uniqueness.

Views: 0

Replies to This Discussion

very funny!
In a very philosophical discussion over on Facebook, one commentator stated: Although it is still debated among physicists I find it exciting that there could be 11 different dementions.

It actually sums up where I could see the discussion going if it went on too long (like some of the ones here on A|N.) Or, it could be the most accurate description of string theory that I've ever seen.
Without giving it much thought, I think so. So what is its function? I think it might be an "intensifier" that functions much as double negatives like "ain't no" do. And if you're really sure, it "ain't no never mind."

For some situations, though, it may actually provide non-redundant information. If a tyro is discussing shrubbery, an expert may correct her by saying "There are {implied 'only'} four different ways of pruning a tree."

Just a thought. And I got to use "tyro" in a sentence! I hope I used it correctly.
Someone here got onto me about writing "the reason is because," because using both "reason" and "because" was redundant. Now that he pointed that out, I notice other people saying it all the time.
Dallas -- Isn't "other people" in your last sentence also redundant? Or, are you distinguishing them from the person who pointed out the issue?
Hmmm...no, I don't think so. What I am saying is people other than myself. I did it, and now that I have been corrected, I notice other people doing it.
Maybe it's only partly redundant. You see others doing it [assumes you have corrected your behavior or that you are making no claim about yourself.] Or you see people doing it [which could include your uncorrected self.] Or you see other people doing it [but you're specifically excluding yourself from the statement.]
Or you see people doing it [which could include your uncorrected self.]

Yes, but we don't really refer to ourselves as people though, do we.

Of course, using just people would have been sufficient, I suppose. I mean, people always has to be people other than yourself, right? I guess it could be redundant in the sense of using my personal feelings. One's feelings are always personal, and we can't experience other people's feelings, so my feelings would do.

Or you see other people doing it [but you're specifically excluding yourself from the statement.]

That's what I am saying.
The "other" has a hint of a sniff in it, no?

Well, I didn't mean it that way. :P But I suppose it would depend on the context of the conversation, and the tone of voice, if spoken that is. It could be meant that way.
Unless you actually say - "some people do this, while other people do that." But then the second "people" is redundant, right? So you could say "Some people do this, while other so that." But then "people" might be redundant altogether, if it is clear, from context, that you are talking about people.
Howard: If the context of "people" is clear, you can shorten it all to "Some do this, others do that." No?
You mean "people other than I," DG! ;)

I thought you said I could use myself if I already used I. My quote: What I am saying is people other than myself.

it's a mixed construction

What do you mean by that?

RSS

Support Nexus

Click to Buy Amazon items and help A|N

Advertisements

Heathen's Guide

Your Ad Here

Helpful Items

 

Search Atheist Nexus:
Translate page:
 
Social Networking Links:
 

Latest Activity

Idaho Spud replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Game-changing solar energy breakthrough claimed in the group Climate Concerns
12 seconds ago
Idaho Spud replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Cicadas taste like asparagus in the group THE KNIFE & FORK
20 minutes ago
Idaho Spud commented on Sentient Biped's group Godless in the garden
23 minutes ago
Loren Miller commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
46 minutes ago
George Gordner III posted videos
1 hour ago
Randall Smith commented on GOD'aye's blog post Is there a war on Christianity in Arkansas? Or is it simply protecting the Constitution from Evangelistic Christians?
1 hour ago
Randall Smith replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Sweet alyssum to fight aphids in the group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Randall Smith replied to Steph S.'s discussion 10 Things You Can't Do and Become President in the group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
jay H replied to Dr. Allan H. Clark's discussion Unforessen consequence of Obamacare
1 hour ago
jay H replied to Dr. Allan H. Clark's discussion Unforessen consequence of Obamacare
1 hour ago
jay H replied to Loren Miller's discussion Morals in Men - Morals in Chimps - Why? (CNN - Kelly Murray)
2 hours ago
joe.J.McDonnell commented on George Gordner III's video
3 hours ago
joe.J.McDonnell liked George Gordner III's video
3 hours ago
Debra Stevenson added 2 discussions to the group Ex-Adventists and Seventh-day Atheists
3 hours ago
Richard C Brown commented on Hessenroots's group Useless Without Coffee
3 hours ago
Debra Stevenson replied to Anthony Jordan's discussion The Deceitful Heart
4 hours ago
Anthony Jordan posted a discussion
5 hours ago
Debra Stevenson posted a blog post
5 hours ago
Tony Carroll commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
6 hours ago
Debra Stevenson replied to Debra Stevenson's discussion Camp Meeting in the group Ex-Adventists and Seventh-day Atheists
6 hours ago

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Brother Richard.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service